Abstract
Muhammad Zaman, painter of the Safavid era, in some of his paintings has copied the western (“Farangi”) works. He has also used some of the techniques of the Western Modern age painting in some of his original works, having a traditional theme. Among these techniques, perspective has a great significance. In his copied works, Muhammad Zaman has used the perspective correctly, but in his original works, sometimes the perspective has been done correctly and sometimes incorrectly and unaligned. Until now, some commentators have argued that the use of perspective by Muhammad Zaman was due to a kind of incompetency and lack of academic education. In this article, in contrast to this view, it is argued that the point about Muhammad Zaman’s correct/incorrect use of perspective has been underestimated and therefore, there is a need to reinterpret what has hitherto been considered as a simple inaccuracy. In his original works, Muhammad Zaman, has arisen a question about the relation between traditional Persian miniatures and Western painting. Hence, in this paper, by examining some of the original works of Muhammad Zaman, this question is discussed and it is claimed that in the absence of theoretical discussions concerning the relation between the old and the new elements in painting, the inevitable result was the domination of Western perspective on Iranian painting. In other words, the works of Muhammad Zaman can be considered as a vehicle for “thinking”. Imaginary atmosphere of Persian painting and the Western perspective are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad Zaman transformed this incompatibility to the image as a “question”.
Keywords: Muhammad Zaman, Perspective, Painting of Safavid.

Introduction
The title of my Ph.D. thesis was “The problem of basis in theoretical Iranian art studies”. While writing the thesis, I encountered issues that needed further study. Perspective was one of those issues. Formerly, I had read important works such as Panofsky’s Perspective as Symbolic Form and Belting’s Florence and Baghdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science, but it seemed to me that the Perspective issue in Iran had certain conditions that had to be examined in the greater context of the nature of art in Iran. It is not possible to describe that framework in detail here, but I would point out that at the time of the emergence of perspective in Iranian painting, there was not even a word for “Fine Arts” in Iran. Of course, in Europe at that time such a term had not yet been formed as well, but the situation in Iran was different. So, there was no theoretical understanding of the arts at that time and there was also no treatise on perspective. The issue of perspective was important because, unlike other western techniques, the structure of Iranian painting and western perspective were mutually exclusive. Muhammad Zaman was among the first painters to use perspective, but as I will explain, this use was problematic. In this article, I will try to show how his works can be considered as a vehicle for this problem.   

Muhammad Zaman and the Problem of Perspective
In some of his paintings, Muhammad Zaman has copied the western paintings. In Persian, it calls “Farangi-sazi” (This terms means making paintings by imitating western themes or techniques). In these paintings perspective has been used almost correctly and shows that he was briefly acquainted with this technique. But he also has “original works” which are more important to my discussion. In the latter works, sometimes the perspective has been done correctly and sometimes incorrectly and unaligned. Although these “original works” have a Persian theme, their form is a combination of western and Persian principles.  Contrary to the supposition of a group of researchers, some other scholars have proven that Muhammad Zaman has never traveled to Italy and India. In this article, this issue is not discussed and, instead, his remaining works are addressed. So, in this article, five “original” paintings of Muhammad Zaman are examined: “A meeting between Afrasiab and Garsivaz”, “Fitna and Bahram Gur”, “Simurgh appearing at the birth of Rustam”, “Bestowal of a ring”, and Finally “Head of Iraj presented to Salm and Tur”. I will first show that in them the structure of Iranian painting is combined with the wrong and correct perspectives. There are two hypotheses about the combination of incorrect and correct perspectives of these works: First, Muhammad Zaman did not have a proper understanding of the western linear perspective, which indicates that he had not traveled to Italy and he did not have academic education in painting. The other hypothesis is that he, consciously or unconsciously, realized the contradiction between the Imaginary atmosphere of Persian painting and the Western perspective, and therefore transformed this contradiction to the image as a “question”. In this paper, taking into account some considerations, the second hypothesis is defended. In the final section, two issues are considered: Before Muhammad Zaman and after him. Before him, Behzad, Reza Abbasi and their followers had provided a groundwork for the encounter between Western and Iranian paintings. But perspective was never a problem for them. It was Muhammad Zaman who, using perspectives in his original works, dared and crossed the boundaries of tradition (“Sunnah”). However, he could not find a clear answer. After him, this question was neglected and considered as a style in Iranian painting, the so-called “Farangi-sazi”. His question, however, had the potential to be viewed as a question of painting style, as well as the question about the larger context of our relation with the West.

Conclusion
Iran has inevitably encountered West since the Safavid era, and its arts were no exception. In that time, Muhammad Zaman made new experiences in painting, of which perspective was the most problematic one. His style continued until the Qajar period among some painters. According to some scholars, Kamal-ol-Molk eventually corrected them. But did they make a mistake? Can art be said to be true and false? No! I finally conclude that Muhammad Zaman’s “gaze” was lost, and today we can regard his work as a “visual question” that helps us understand the nature of Iranian art in the modern era.

Abstract
Fakhr and Madin are the networks inside the fence and religious places that are repeated in the form of grids. Such walls are made with pieces of baked clay in geometric and non-geometric shapes, and because holes have appeared between them, they have tried to make their form beautiful as well. In the Islamic era of Iran, mausoleums and tombs after mosques are among the most important works of architecture and urban planning. The construction of this building began in the fourth century AH and continues with ups and downs until the Safavid era. According to the surviving works, the Ilkhanate period in Iran can be considered as the peak period of the popularity and prosperity of the construction of “Fakhr and Medin” in tomb buildings. In this article, a number of tomb buildings from the Ilkhanid, Timurid and Safavid eras are comparatively studied. The paper follows the main question of what evolution Fakhr and Madin have undergone in the Islamic period with emphasis on the three mentioned periods, and how its application can be explained and traced in comparison? This research is a combination of two types of qualitative and quantitative research methods and descriptive-analytical method based on logical reasoning. Data collection was done through library study and valid historical documents and review of images and documentation centers. In this regard, first, the historical background and theoretical foundations of the topic have been examined. Then, all the types of Fakhr and Madin in the tombs of the three Ilkhanid, Timurid and Safavid periods (a total of 25 case studies) have been analyzed according to the geometric patterns, location and materials used in their construction. The result of a comparative study shows that “Fakhr and Madin” has been compiled in the form of seven physical-semantic indicators. These characteristics include: spirituality, transparency, environmental comfort, security, visual interaction, privacy and beauty, and it was found that in the Ilkhanate period, the characteristics of “spirituality” and “visual interaction”, in the Timurid period, the characteristics of “environmental comfort” and “Visual interaction” and in the Safavid period, the characteristics of “spirituality” and “environmental comfort” have been emphasized.. 
Keywords: Fakhr and Madin, Tomb, Ilkhani, Teymouri, Safavid.
.
Introduction
Iranians have always revered their dead throughout history, but this reverence has never been for the deity of beings, either before Islam or after Islam. This attention and respect can be considered as a mixture of theology and fear of death and love and affection for parents and ancestors, which has never reached the stage of worshiping the dead.
In the Islamic era of Iran, the tomb, with the exception of the mosque, has received more public attention than any other type of architecture, so that in few cities there is no share of such buildings. On the other hand, assuming the obvious connection of many architectural and urban works of early Islamic Iran with pre-Islamic heritage, it is worth emphasizing that in pre-Islamic times, with the exception of the magnificent tomb of Cyrus, there are no important signs of tombs that were built independently. 
Tomb buildings from the fourth century AH, after both religious and non-religious in Islamic architecture and urban planning in Iran, have opened their place, with the difference that the buildings are part of the religious group and mostly Shiite tombs and holy shrines have been given special attention in terms of sanctity and have been renovated over the years. But the non-religious tombs, which include the tombs of the rulers, princes and elders of the country, have not been given much importance and most of them have suffered various injuries or changes over time or have changed their nature and have become religious tombs and buildings. In this article, in line with the above, it has been tried to study and explore the architectural-urban works of the Islamic period (tombs and mausoleum) with emphasis on the three periods of Ilkhanids, Timurids and Safavids, and in particular “Fakhr and Madin” in these tombs should be analyzed.

Comparative Study: The position of “Fakhr and Madin” in the Ilkhanid, Timurid and Safavid Periods
This type of bricklaying (Fakhr and Madin) with its lattice module which is composed of regular and sometimes irregular geometric shapes, in the case of gardens, in order to illuminate and clarify the building, play with light and shadow, pay attention to the issue of privacy and prevent the view of the object directly and from the inside, be safe and secure, was actually used. This porosity in the garden fence in addition to creating vision and perspective into the garden and visual interaction with the internal environment, with shadows and stylized space, with the weakening of the light intensity for pedestrians providing a favorable path, causing its lattice body. 
In this section, the tombs of the Islamic period are studied with emphasis on the status of Fakhr and Madin. As mentioned earlier, Fakhr and Madin has been one of the elements of Iranian indigenous architecture, which has a special place in various types of Iranian architecture. Architects have used this technique to create shadows and lights for visual beauty as well as to attract attention to the building. The selection of 25 case studies of the tomb in the three periods of the Ilkhanids, Timurids and Safavids is the basis of a comparative study of this part of the study. The use of Fakhr and Madin dates back to the pre-Ilkhanate period, but due to the small use of this element, their study has been abandoned. At the same time, for example, the Nain Grand Mosque in the Albuyeh period and the Ardestan Grand Mosque in the Seljuk period have benefited from its pride and use. In the first case, Fakhr and Madin have been used as skylights and connectors for air conditioning, as well as in Patio. In the second case, Fakhr and Madin on the ground floor and the first floor, with the aim of visual interaction and shading, air conditioning and light transmission, have been considered.
In order to summarize the discussion and the possibility of comparing the results, Fakhr and Madin indicators (7 indicators) in 25 samples were presented comparatively in the form of a table and separately for the three periods studied.

Conclusion
The result of this comparative study shows that in the Ilkhanate period, Fakhr and Madin were used in different parts, including under the dome of the outer fence of the altar porch and the porch of the tombs. This course includes the most variety in the places used. Of course, the greatest benefit of Fakhr and Madin was identified under the dome and then in the walls around the compound. Therefore, it can be concluded that the most important subject of the Ilkhanate was “spirituality” and then “visual interaction”. This is while in the Timurid period, the most use of Fakhr and Madin was in the outer body and then in the porch, dome and lanai. So in this period, the most important topics are “environmental comfort” and “visual interaction”. In the Safavid period, Fakhr and Madin was used in the dome and the outer wall. In this period, “spirituality” and “environmental comfort” have been the most important characteristics used by Fakhr and Madin. On the other hand, according to the studies done, in the case of different types of tombs, the most use of Fakhr and Madin has been in individual tombs, although a mass tomb was also found during the Ilkhanid and Timurid periods (who used Fakhr and Madin). Also, the most varied form of Fakhr and Madin is under the domes and around the courtyards and fences, almost a fixed form of Fakhr and Madin has been used. As expected from the definitions of Fakhr and Madin, the most used materials were bricks. But other materials such as pottery and wood have also been used in its construction. Finally, the most important indicator used of pride and civility was “transparency” and then “environmental comfort” and in the next category “spirituality”, although it seems that in the collection of tombs, the indicator of “security” was considered and Special emphasis has been placed on it.

The Turban helmet is a type of war helmet during the 14th to 16th centuries AD in Middle East countries. This type of helmet has become known by Western scholars by this name because of the special decorations that made it look like a turban as well as the visibility of the helmet from under the warriors’ turban. Based on the numerous documents remaining, one can say that the use of Turban helmets was popular in Middle East territories’ armies during the Middle Ages. Despite being widely used and in style for more than two centuries and among many west Asian countries, among all the remaining samples of this type of middle eastern helmet, only two distinct styles, the Turkoman and the Ottoman styles, have been examined and introduced. This can be due to a large number of remaining samples of these two being kept for years in the armouries of the Ottoman Empire. Apart from these two known styles, few studies have been done so far on investigating other possible types of turban helmets. The purpose of this research is to study the turban helmets that were popular among the armies of the Il-khanid, Jalayirid, Muzaffarid, Timurid, Turkoman, and Safavid that ruled respectively in the cultural Iran region, by relying on the remaining documents from the 14th to the 16th centuries, such as the collection of helmets and illustrated manuscripts. The results of this research reveal that the changes that occurred in the making of turban helmets during the 14th to the 16th centuries have led to the representation of four different types of helmets: Mongolian style, Timurid style, Turkoman style, and Qizilbash style.